|
Hyazinth Graf Strachwitz
Germany
Duesseldorf
-
Despite good comments I still had doubts but after reading that is history now.
Thanks for the passionate review!
-
Mark Gray
United States
Glenwood Springs
Colorado
-
Victory Lost is what a modern wargame should be. Nice review.
-
Steve Bernhardt
United States
saratoga springs
Utah
-
Good review; you hit all the points!
Regarding the train ninjas, we cooperatively looked at all the rail lines and noted which ones needed covering so that there were no "gotcha" moments that could ruin the game.
Regarding Rostov, I think its pretty important to avoid getting 1st Panzer Army pocketed there. I would rather concede the city after sacrificing some brave infantry than lose valuable armor there. Those panzers are needed in the Stalino area so that units are available to shift north to fight near Kharkov. The trick seems to be holding the river line so that the Russians can't slam the door on Rostov from the north.
-
Tim Taylor
United States
Port Townsend
Washington
-
Excellent review, Patrick!
I wanted to mention that your two sore points, Soviet armored train ninjas and that ol' meandering supply line, do not bother me in the least. I'd even add a third quirk -- that supply is not drawn to the board edge, but to three discreet hexes for each player. Lose those hexes and your whole army group is out of supply!
My feeling is that these rules' quirks are basically behavioral modifiers. They subtly prevent a player from pulling off too much. These quirks compel a player to play within historical parameters without forcing them to do so. Once you know about the ramifications of these quirks, you know to avoid the heartache they can cause by altering your play ever so slightly.
For example, consider the following:
Soviet armored train ninjas: Compels both players to maintain a reserve behind the lines for rapid redeployment. This is especially true for the Axis player and doubly so during the dreaded turn 4 window of oppotunity. No one is forced to do this and there are no rules mandating (or even concerning) reserves in AVL, yet a savvy player will do that "just in case." To me, this is brilliant.
Loop-dee-loop supply lines: Allows players a choice of how to proceed once enemy forces have been sidelined -- form a Kessel and reduce the pocket by force or bypass the unit knowing that sometime after the game ends any enemy force left behind the lines will surrender. A player must ask himself, "Can I afford to bypass this enemy safely?" The worst thing is to have ostensibly powerless, immobile units that used to be way behind the lines suddenly come back into HQ range due to an unexpected counterattack -- boy oh boy can they do some real damage! Once again, this compels a player to make the choice, without forcing any decision.
All supply is funnelled through three hexes: Addresses the "edge of the world" syndrome so common in wargames, by making the maintenance of a strategic reserve near the board edge (including an HQ) an attractive proposition. If a successful thrust has the potential to put all your units out of supply, you'll probably work very hard to prevent this. If you leave your hinterlands undefended, you deserve everything you get! You don't literally need to maintain a strategic reserve (composed of damaged units) defending these three hexes -- and sometimes you won't have the wherewithal to do it anyway -- but there are strong reasons to do so. There are no rules forcing a player to do anything. But a wise player will cover all his bases. He will maintain a strategic reserve without there being any need for rules about reserves or behind the lines garrisons, or anything like that. Just blessed simplicity.
So, in summation, these "game-y" rules do not irk me because I feel they are part of a subtle methodology which promotes historical play without mandating anything. The rules that are important are the rules that are not there. Kind of a Zen sensibilty, that. Which is not very surprising considering the designer is Japanese.
This is the most brilliant design I've seen in decades, and Tetsuya Nakamura deserves all the accolades he receives.
-
F A
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
-
Pathirtle wrote: ..... Yes, it's that good.
That pretty well sums up AVL in a nutshell.
-
Sean Chick
United States
Hammond
Louisiana
-
"I am attacking! I am defending! I am counterattacking!"
Great quote from Cross of Iron
-
M@tthijs
Netherlands
NOT
Holland
Earn tons of geekgold:...
...go to VGG and add videogames to the database
-
wargamer66 wrote: [..]Regarding the train ninjas, we cooperatively looked at all the rail lines and noted which ones needed covering so that there were no "gotcha" moments that could ruin the game.[..] And that's how we make Paths of Glory pass the test as good as AVL: in PbeM play, anytime a player notes a hole in the line (or to be more precise: punches a hole in the line) he notifies his opponent with a small 'OOS-warning' so the opponent has his 1 action phase reaction time and no games are ruined.
Herr Niemand wrote: [..]So, in summation, these "game-y" rules do not irk me because I feel they are part of a subtle methodology which promotes historical play without mandating anything. The rules that are important are the rules that are not there. Kind of a Zen sensibilty, that. Which is not very surprising considering the designer is Japanese.
This is the most brilliant design I've seen in decades, and Tetsuya Nakamura deserves all the accolades he receives. I agree 100%. I believe the Japanese call it yugen ( 幽玄 ) :a subtle hint makes you think about something being there, but it isn't. The game (almost) doesn't have supply rules or railhead rules, yet you play as if it does.
-
Spyros Gkiouzepas
Greece
THESSALONIKI
-
Did this review dissapeared???
-
Jerome
Netherlands
Eindhoven
-
The author of the review, Patrick Hirst, fell out of love with BGG after a heated discussion with some narrowminded people over here, and with some pathos he left the site, deleting all of his content.
-
-
Sorry to read that. A 91-thumbs-up review being canceled is a loss for all of us. Sorry to know that one gamer left for such a reason.
-
Железный комиссар
United States
Madison
Wisconsin
-
Tsaar wrote: The author of the review, Patrick Hirst, fell out of love with BGG after a heated discussion with some narrowminded people over here, and with some pathos he left the site, deleting all of his content.
His name was Patrick Hirtle. Cool guy. Good writer, too.
-
Jerome
Netherlands
Eindhoven
-
JohnRayJr wrote: Tsaar wrote: The author of the review, Patrick Hirst, fell out of love with BGG after a heated discussion with some narrowminded people over here, and with some pathos he left the site, deleting all of his content. His name was Patrick Hirtle. Cool guy. Good writer, too.
Apologies for my mistake, it was Hirtle indeed. And he was a good writer, but unfortunately noone arriving now can confirm that.
-
Russ Williams
Poland
Wrocław
Dolny Śląsk
-
For those who are interested, there is a version of the pointlessly deleted review (last edited by Pathirtle on 2007-02-05) at archive.org:
http://web.archive.org/web/20071222182346/http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/150019
-
MAURO BORNIOLI
Italy
CAGLIARI
SARDEGNA
-
Thanks Russ,
it's really a great review !
It's a pleasure to read.
It would be nice if he could come back here in BGGeek.
-
|
|
Posted Mon Feb 5, 2007 11:32 am
